All Powerful and All Knowing

[thinking]

I was thinking again about the ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-KNOWING God again and I just couldn't remember our last debate so I thought I'd bring up a couple of points.


1) God is defined as ALL POWERFUL (can do anything)
2) God is defined as ALL KNOWING (knows everything)


But, we know humans can doing things god, in these states of being, can not do - like learn. We can learn. God can not learn.

What else?

We can think. God can not think. Also thinking is a rational process. God therefor is not rational because It can not think. It can only be in the state of ALL KNOWING.

We can Laugh in surprise at a funny joke. God is humorless. It can not be surprised by the ending of a joke. It does not laugh. It can only exist in the state of ALL-KNOWING.

We feel emotion. Emotion is a change in mental state. God never has a change in mental state. It exists in only the ALL-KNOWING mental state. It has no emotions. It is unemotional.

We feel sensation. Sensation is a change in neural conduction registered as a change in mental state. God is in a constant state of numbness. It can not "feel" as it's mental state is only in one position - - that of ALL-KNOWING.

It doesn't learn, love, hate, feel feelings, feel warmth .... nothing. It just exists as an ALL-KNOWING Thing.


Aside from the fact that we humans being able to do some many things a purportedly ALL POWERFUL God is POWERLESS to do, I'd like to say this God is a f*cking creepy thing to worship.


It's also pointless to worship It as you can have ZERO affect on it's mental State - which stays at all times and forever in only one immutable state: ALL-KNOWING.


Someone said that perhaps the action of thinking is not BETTER than that of knowing all. I said that not only is BETTER subjective, that's not the point at all, God CAN NOT exist as ALL POWERFUL and at the same time NOT be able to do all these things we can do. It therefor is not ALL POWERFUL.




That aside, God is a thing that ONLY exists in the state ALL KNOWING like some huge computer Hard-Drive. God is this massive information storage device. A humorlessness, numb, emotionally dead, cold, impassive, unfeeling, irrational ALL-KNOWING Thing. An extremely large USB stick.


THIS Thing, someone suggested is BETTER because it exists like this?!?!



Well I don't think so,

Michael

inotherwords god makes mistakes

so god has become Human , makes mistakes

 

[Michael]

Actually thinking is all about modeling the world according to one's desires. values, goals, etc

Given that conditioned life is all about problems in progress (or too put it another way, our conditioned models of the universe should be and our role to play in it are not at all persistent or constant), its clear god has plenty to think about.

And ALL-KNOWING USB drive has nothing to to "think" about. All-Knowing USB drives do not have desires or any other emotions as they only exist in one state: ALL-KNOWING

 

[lightgigantic]

Then, of course, absolute control is not pertinent to unconditioned life.

hence the un- in unconditioned.

IOW conditioned life lays claim to some issues that require absolute control.

 

[lightgigantic]

And ALL-KNOWING USB drive has nothing to to "think" about.

Even a 1GB flashdrive has nothing to think about, namely because it has no values, objectives, etc

All-Knowing USB drives do not have desires or any other emotions as they only exist in one state: ALL-KNOWING

Just because an entity has recourse to being all knowing it does not mean that they have no pending value systems. For instance, some aspects of knowledge might be considered more pertinent than others. This would in turn reflect on how they organized their environment.

 

[thinking]

Actually thinking is all about modeling the world according to one's desires. values, goals, etc

Given that conditioned life is all about problems in progress (or too put it another way, our conditioned models of the universe should be and our role to play in it are not at all persistent or constant),

its clear god has plenty to think about.

and clearly more than god can handle

 

[lightgigantic]

and clearly more than god can handle

Its not clear how, where or when we became classified as absolutely unmanageable.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Its not clear how, where or when we became classified as absolutely unmanageable.

That will probably coincide with the same day the idea of God went public. A sad, sad, terrible day.:bawl:

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
and clearly more than god can handle

Its not clear how, where or when we became classified as absolutely unmanageable.

eve and adam perhaps as a starting point

at least biblicaly

 

[lightgigantic]

That will probably coincide with the same day the idea of God went public. A sad, sad, terrible day.:bawl:

Love it or loathe it, the idea of god is very much public (despite the bitter wranglings of ex-christians in their examination of remote amazonian tribes)

 

[lightgigantic]

eve and adam perhaps as a starting point

at least biblicaly

even biblicaly speaking, they weren't managed?

 

[thinking]

Its not clear how, where or when we became classified as absolutely unmanageable.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
eve and adam perhaps as a starting point

at least biblicaly

even biblicaly speaking, they weren't managed?

they were

think about it , god said do as I say

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Love it or loathe it, the idea of god is very much public (despite the bitter wranglings of ex-christians in their examination of remote amazonian tribes)

Never thought you would ever write that God is an idea.

Of course this gets my guard up once again. Who am I dealing with here, Ferdinand Waldo Demara?

 

[lightgigantic]

they were

think about it , god said do as I say

hence the suggestion that they are not unconditioned characters

 

[lightgigantic]

Never thought you would ever write that God is an idea.

If you offered an example of how to discuss a particular thing without calling upon ideas perhaps I could follow your lead .....

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

If you offered an example of how to discuss a particular thing without calling upon ideas perhaps I could follow your lead .....

Nice try!!! All powerful and knowing is an idea....discuss it as an idea, not a given. Since God is the same then it is only pertinent that you do the right thing....admit that one cannot personally know an idea, nor can one claim a secondary idea about the same thing as factual.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
they were

think about it , god said do as I say ”

hence the suggestion that they are not unconditioned characters

hence the suggestion that they are not unconditioned characters

hence though the wrath of god because of their actions

managed

 

[lightgigantic]

Nice try!!! All powerful and knowing is an idea....discuss it as an idea, not a given.

hehe

as if sci and its great reservoirs of laurel - residing arm - chairafarians ever had recourse to an alternative ...

Since God is the same then it is only pertinent that you do the right thing....admit that one cannot personally know an idea, nor can one claim a secondary idea about the same thing as factual.

"idea" is pertinent to the first base of any knowledge based claim (aka theory).

"idea" is not sufficient to incorporate all that a knowledge entails (aka practice)

"idea" does however return for an appearance later on (aka conclusion/realization), but this is directly in relation to an object/experience.

 

[lightgigantic]

hence though the wrath of god because of their actions

managed

sure

force is but one means of management, called upon, to various degrees, by buffalo herders, school teachers and prison wardens.

In fact its impossible to conceive of any entity that is recognized as bearing some sort of order on the world around them that doesn't have recourse to force.

An absence of force (in one's scope for recourse) does not indicate a good "manager".

An absence of force indicates an absence of managers.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

"idea" does however return for an appearance later on (aka conclusion/realization), but this is directly in relation to an object/experience.

One of the smoothest attempts ever made to wriggle off a hook. Well done! Congrats....it'll keep the God drive alive. Spare me the details of your experience, oh wait!. you already do.

Storytime:

Two early homo sapiens are sitting in their cave contemplating a problem. It seems they are having trouble dragging home food fast enough, avoiding scavengers along the way, lose a few kinfolk or just plain fatigue setting in.

All of a sudden Ook gets up, runs out the mouth of the cave, kills a goat and places it on a pile of stones all the while mumbling some mumbo-jumbo about a sky being. Oog, the other thinker asks what's up and Ook answers that there must be a God that can help them with their problem so he was only trying to evoke a favorable response by sacrificing little Billy Goat Gruff. Oog goes back to the cave and the next day invents the wheel.

Both these actions(God and wheel) were the result of ideas. Of the two, which one was more realistic, practical and testable? Would it be right to conclude Oog's wheel idea came about because of Ook's god idea? IOW, would the experience (wheel invention following God idea) be enough to conclude God exists in the sky, likes sacrifices and bestows favors to those who believe and honor Him?

 

[lightgigantic]

One of the smoothest attempts ever made to wriggle off a hook.

just as well

a discussion that cries foul at the mere introduction of "idea" would certainly be mystifying

Well done! Congrats....it'll keep the God drive alive. Spare me the details of your experience, oh wait!. you already do.

Your local doctor, car mechanic and particle physicist probably display a similar mercy

Storytime:

Two early homo sapiens are sitting in their cave contemplating a problem. It seems they are having trouble dragging home food fast enough, avoiding scavengers along the way, lose a few kinfolk or just plain fatigue setting in.

All of a sudden Ook gets up, runs out the mouth of the cave, kills a goat and places it on a pile of stones all the while mumbling some mumbo-jumbo about a sky being. Oog, the other thinker asks what's up and Ook answers that there must be a God that can help them with their problem so he was only trying to evoke a favorable response by sacrificing little Billy Goat Gruff. Oog goes back to the cave and the next day invents the wheel.

Both these actions(God and wheel) were the result of ideas. Of the two, which one was more realistic, practical and testable? Would it be right to conclude Oog's wheel idea came about because of Ook's god idea? IOW, would the experience (wheel invention following God idea) be enough to conclude God exists in the sky, likes sacrifices and bestows favors to those who believe and honor Him?

Perhaps the issues of practice that surround wheel manufacture do not have a bearing on the practices that surround being knowledgeable of god

(IOW small wonder that your cave man god idea has problems at the conclusion stage)